> In article <c2fnha$1nn$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey]
wrote...
>
> [snip]
> >> I'm not sure that we should really expect that the currently-known
> >> fossil record of Loricariidae [or Callichthyiidae] should be any
> >> better than it is.
> >>
> >> First, it seems that there aren't any large number of South American
> >> freshwater fossil sites of the right age range that have been
> >> extensively explored so far. How many fossil catfish experts are
> >> currently working to actually study whatever remains have been found
> >> to date? For all we know, there may in fact be many more fossil
> >> armored-catfish specimens already on museum storage shelves but
> >> still waiting to be described and named.
> >>
> >> Then, there are the obvious taphonomic questions:
> >>
> >> Don't many loricariids prefer to live in rocky stream habitats, not in
> >> places with deeply accumulating sediment? I vaguely remember
> >> something of the sort. If it's the case that living loricariids tend
> >> to avoid those places that favor fossil preservation, then it may not
> >> be so surprising that the known fossils of their relatives are
> >> relatively few.
> >>
> >> From what I've seen so far about the loricariid and callichthyiid
> >> fossil record, it sounds like members of both families often tend to
> >> disintegrate into a jumble of loose plates and spines after death.
> >> [An aquarist might confirm if this often happens to ones that die
> >> several days before being discovered and removed?] Even if the
> >> scattered bits of armor do preserve well, the hypothetical overworked
> >>
> >> South American paleoichthyologists might be forgiven for not spending
> >> much time classifying the fragmentary remains. I'm reminded of that
> >> earlier-cited paper which mentioned layers with concentrations of
> >> abundant Corydoras plates and spines, but evidently didn't bother to
> >> name any new fossil Corydoras species from the remains. The literature
> >> already cited of fossil loricariids and callichthyiids do seem to
> >> largely involve descriptions of loose bones [other than your one very
> >> complete Corydoras fossil].
> >>
> >> Anyway, it seems to me that the currently-known existence of even a
> >> few fossil speciments and species of these fish strongly implies the
> >> existence of many more individuals [and additional related species]
> >> that aren't yet known as fossils. Presumably, that fossil Corydoras
> >> species known only from a single specimen must represent only one of
> >> a very large number of individuals that ever lived of that species.
> >> [But I suppose a believer in special creationism might argue that that
> >> one fossil fish may well have been the only individual ever created of
> >> its species, and a true believer in omphalism might even suggest that
> >> it was specially created as a fossil, already in place in the rocks]
> >>
> >> Even an adherent of inclusive separately-created "kinds" would need
> >> to argue that there are many "gaps" in the fossil record between say,
> >> the remarkable modern diversity of Corydoras catfishes and the
> >> hypothetical originally-created single ancestral form of their "kind".
> >> The explanation will be much the same as the "evolutionist" one-- all
> >> the required gradual-intermediate forms must have existed in the past,
> >> but most are as yet unknown as fossils.
>
> >My Omphalism Lite is still tending to believe that the fossils are from
the
> >Flood and not from being placed there, as full omphalism would suggest.
> >
> >Omphalism Lite is like a cross between Full Omphalism and YEC, taking the
> >strongest bits of each idea.
>
> Okay. And Last Thursdayism is the straight vodka version of Omphalism?
That's how I see it, but this is only my personal idea, you won't find it as
far as I know in any books or stuff.
> >The way that a huge group of fishes like the armoured catfishes, and we
can
> >also look at doradid catfishes which also have hefty plates, leave so
little
> >trace in the record really needs some explanation by evolutionists.
>
> Well, it seems to me that the problem would just be one of you
> expecting there to be more fossils than there are, since all of these
> groups are reportedly known from at least _some_ fossils.
A Flood's worth, rather than a hundred million year's worth.
>
> I quite
> >appreciated your argument about loricariids preferring upstream
locations,
> >but this is far from the case with all types. The peruvian
Pseudosturisoma
> >is a good example of the type you mentioned (picture of mine
> >http://www.jbc.nildram.co.uk/DCAM0307.JPG ) As you can probably see it is
> >very flattened and adapted to the upstream niche. The problem I had was
even
> >that it preferred a much lower temperature than the 27 degrees I couldn't
> >get below in that tank over the summer, and in due course I lost the
fish.
> >
> >This is actually not such a typical loricariid, and in consequence harder
to
> >keep unless you can refrigerate your tank all summer...
> >
> >In fact the world's leading expert on Loricariids, Hans-Georg Evers, whom
I
> >once about twelve years ago had the priviledge of visiting with and
seeing
> >his fine collection of fish and tree frogs also, (he seemed to have
enough
> >Dendrobates to put out the population of Hamburg,
>
> He'd probably need Phyllobates terribilis for that [but I hear that
> captive ones lose the toxicity, that it's dependent on their natural
> diet]
I wouldn't put it past a real spec. like Hans Georg to keep the whole
ecosystem going.
Let me tell you something about Hans Georg, and why I think he is one of the
unsung heros of this planet. He ran throughout the German speaking world
amongst people who keep fish seriously what he calls a Patenschaft scheme.
It means that for every fish which is endangered in the wild, but breedable
in captivity, he keeps a register of the people who have agreed to be the
'godfather' or 'Pater' for that speacies, so that if someone goes and builds
a carpark over their ecosystem, as the Mexicans like to do, or have a war in
their river, as the Sri Lankans love, then there is a base in captivity so
that they can be kept on and re-introduced. A godfather has to keep at least
one tank free for the breeding of the species, if he commits to being the
godfather for the species. Evers not only had that idea, but promoted and
administered it for many many years. I haven't read the DATZ or any German
aquatic mags for a while, so I'm not sure if he's doing it still, but
actually I'm pretty sure he won't have given up on it. That man lives for
nature.
>
> but I'm sure he didn't
> >mean anything by it, and of course if he had we'd have known about it by
> >now) and Ingo Seidel (whom I don't know personally - yet anyway) write in
> >the standard work Mergus Wels Atlas Band 1 ISBN 3-88244-062-7 on page 31
the
> >following: "Es ist keine leichte Aufgabe, im eng gesetzten Rahmen dieses
> >Buches [yeah right, it's only 816 pages on half a family] alle
Lebensraeume
> >der Harnischwelse vorzustellen. Die verschiedenen Mitglieder der Familie
> >haben im Laufe der Evolution die meisten der bekannten Lebensraeume in
der
> >Neotropis besiedelt.
> >
> >Evers and Seidel then goes on for another 160 pages talking about all the
> >different niches of the Loricariidae all over S. America, with copius
> >illustrations.
> >
> ><puts book back on shelf>.
> >
> >So, I still think that science has a long way to go to illustrate the
> >evolution of Loricariidae, and in particular the eye.
>
> They do have some interesting funny-shaped pupils [but I prefer some
> geckos' weird ones that close in bright light to make a vertical row
> of diamond-shaped pinholes].
Yeah. How could that have evolved?
> >The books I have are silent on the fossil record of the family, so what
you
> >have told me is all I know about it, and it certainly seems that we have
too
> >fragmentary knowledge to state in a scientific manner that the family
> >loricariidae, with its 650 odd species, some of them extremely odd, by
the
> >way, actually evolved from anything.
>
> But is the absence of known fossil evidence really evidence of absence?
> It sounds like there are still only a few suitable fossil sites. For
> evidence of their common ancestry with other armored catfishes, we may
> have to rely on evidence from comparative studies of the living forms.
>
> >I would also like to know how people posit the evolution of the
> >characteristic 'omega eye' of the loricariids looked like, along with the
> >intermediate forms.
>
> Eyes being soft tissue, the best approach would probably be the
> comparative one among living forms. Do all Loricariidae have identical
> eyes? If so, do any other loricarioid catfishes approach them at all?
There are variations on a theme throughout the loricarids. The genus Panaque
have the most atypical eyes.
Here is P. suttonorum
http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/panaque_cf_suttonorum.htm
and here is P. nigrolineatus
http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/gpanaque.html
could anyone wishing to keep them note that we now know why they were not
living long in captivity for some good aquarists - they need bogwood as a
staple in their diet.
>
> >From a Creationist perspective, I would say that in all probability there
> >were six kinds; Astroblebidae, Neoplecostominae, Loricarinae,
Ancistrinae,
> >Hypostominae and Hypoptopomatinae, but if Jonathan Armbruster, the
leading
> >ichthyologist in the field, comes up with other findings I will be the
first
> >to wanna take those into account, since obviously the claims of science
are
> >not to be waived aside whenever they are really based on solid evidence.
>
> This is based on your criterion that a kind should be a group that you
> can imagine might have evolved from a common ancestor on a YEC [or YEC
> Lite?] timetable?
Precisely.
That's the weak point, that it's based on surmisal.
>
> It's commendably consistent with its premises, but of course many
> others would doubt that much speciation at all would have occurred
> during just a few thousand years [so that the kinds might as well be
> the same as the extant species].
>
> If your timetable were extended, then would you be able to accept
> much more inclusive kinds?
That's right. But even at the 10,000 years I give, some YEC brethren would
say I was stretching things too far.
Incidentally, the historian Rodney Castleden, who as far as I know has no
profession of faith to grind, reckons that nothing worth calling history can
be proven to have taken place more than 38,000 years ago, a lot more reason
than most others would be happy starting. I started his "World History" as
my bogbook this week.
>
> Here's a thought, and a semi-"gotcha"! moment:
>
OK...
> If as you suppose the loricariid groups Astroblebidae, Neoplecostominae,
> Loricarinae, Ancistrinae, Hypostominae and Hypoptopomatinae are indeed
> the relevant separately-created "kinds", and if the currently-known
> fossil record should in fact be considered reasonably complete [which
> claim is implicit in the usual creationist argument about fossil record
> "gaps"], then there really ought to be some known fossils of each of
> Astroblebidae, Neoplecostominae, Loricarinae, Ancistrinae, Hypostominae
> and Hypoptopomatinae.
Yes, at least, to be consistent with my view, there should be a Flood's
worth of fossils, which is probably not very many, of the exit version of
these kinds, at least with whatever limited speciation it had time for from
creation to the flood, but with no intermediate types between or any common
ancestor fossils at pan-loricariid level, or any callyichtid/loricarid
common ancestor fossils at all.
to be consistent with an evolutionist world view, I would expect to find
loricariid fossils including pan loricariid and common ancestor with
callychthid fossils as rich as trilobites all over South America, since
their bony plates make them the ideal candidate for fossilization.
>
> I suspect that several of them, probably most of them, aren't yet known
> from fossils.
>
And for the reasons I gave, I think this is a harder pill for your side to
swallow, than mine.
> Therefore, the gaps in the fossil record will need explaining by
> Flood/Kind creationists, just as much as they do by evolutionists.
>
I say that a Flood's worth of fossils is a jolly sight less than a hundred
million years of fossils.
I say what we see is so scarce it is easier to reconcile with the former
than the latter.
> No doubt the explanations will have to be closely similar: the early
> members of the groups must have existed, but any fossils they may have
> produced haven't yet been found.
>
> Thus, both creationists and evolutionists must agree that the fossil
> record is simply incomplete after all. QED
>
It's incomplete, but the _way_ in which it is incomplete is very telling.
> A more basic problem I have with this whole thing is, if those
> subfamilies are the separately-created "kinds", then what does
> Loricariidae [or Loricarioidea or Siluriformes or Ostariophysi or
> Teleostei or Vertebrata] even mean? Why should there be any clearly
> recognizable higher-than-kind groups, let alone ones as compellingly
> "real" as Loricariidae?
Well, the answer to that lies with Aristotle, as well as Linnaeus, both of
whom engaged their brains with systematics although neither concerned
themselves with the contemporarily non-existetent question of evolution. The
ordering of species and the naming thereof is not inconsistent with their
being created, in fact, as Genesis shows, the first job God gave to Adam was
to name the living things. What Linnaeus did is simply to follow in the
footsteps of what Adam started, the log of which would have been lost if not
in the fall or the Flood, then certainly at Babel.
>
> Are they just coincidental, random resemblances? Why are within-kind
> patterns of similarities not obviously different in kind [so to speak]
> from higher-than-kind similarities among different kinds? Why do they
> seem to fall naturally into treelike nested hierarchies? Common-descent
> theory offers one clear explanation; the creationist alternative needs
> to come up with an equally good one.
>
I think we have one. The Designer simply picked the designs he liked for the
initial kinds. Some design features were used in various models, and some
were one offs.
I'm not sure that in reality we find them as tree like as you say. Other
than archaeopteryx, which since I've been forced to concede it's not a
hoatzin, could have been a one-off small feathered dragon that did not
survive (maybe Nimrod liked the flavour), we have no part measures between
reptiles and birds, between reptiles and mammals the platypus and echidna
don't really pass muster, as they are obviously monotremes, and between fish
and amphibians there is no real easy transition either. Caecilians are to my
mind clearly amphibians, and their appearance like fish is only cosmetic.
> [enjoying the discussion!]
Me too. I have to say that my faith has grown a lot since I started being on
here.
Many years ago, a friend of mine, a very very very nice chap who actually
helped me through college and lent me money to live on when my grant run out
and the bank wouldn't lend me any more money and with whom I worshipped and
prayed on many occasions, (and we were part of the group of students who
were there and took part in the founding of the first real Presbyterian
church in Cambridge since the apostacy of English Presbyterianism into the
United Reformed Church) came onto this group and after being here for a
while recanted tragically from his faith, and wrote the following post:
http://tinyurl.com/35wvb
Steve may have found that being here made him disbelieve his beliefs, and I
am really sorry to see that, but I have to say that for me the effect is
opposite.
I actually had a great crisis in my faith from 1989 to 1997, and I was just
starting on the route back when Steve was getting off it. Mine was nothing
to do with disbelieving scripture, but the simple fact that I am far too bad
for religion, and basically gave up with trying to live a life of holiness.
I could only get back when I finally saw that the mercy of Christ is that we
cannot be so bad as to fall outside his grace if we only want it. Christ
came not to call the righteous, like the proud person I had been when first
converted, with some wrong ideas about my own value, but sinners to
repentance.
A very good man like Steve came off the rails not over being overtaken by
his own sinfulness, as I was, because he was always a paragon of goodness
and by anybody's standards was a delightful, moral human being, and so we
see him getting upset over what appears to be evidence against his beliefs
and wondering what to do with it. I just say, what might seem to be evidence
just doesn't matter. Let God be true and every man a liar.
I just hope and pray for Steven Carson-Rowland. I don't know where he is
now, I really would like to fellowship with him like in the old times. I
know Paul and Helen, other friends of ours I met recently, would really love
for him to come back too.
We will all come back in the end. Of those that Christ has been given, He
loses none.
There is no need for tears.
>
> cheers
>
>
You too, Mel
Best,
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|